The Moon and it's circumambulating orbit

[equestrian]

It's been said, and I'm sure it's right!

The moon is nothing
But a circumambulating aphrodisiac
Divinely subsidized to provoke the world
Into a rising birth-rate.

And of the moon's circumambulating orbit, where is there a more eloquent characterization than the Book of Enoch, for it is there that the first written reference to the law of conservation of angular momentum is found!

And I saw the chambers of the moon and it's stately orbit, and how it does not leave that orbit and it adds nothing to it, nor takes anything from it, and it keeps faith in accordance with the oath by which it is bound

.

Where did the moon come from? There are a number of theories

1.) The moon was wandering and was captured
2.) The earth and moon condensed from a nebula
3.) Something of size struck the earth and the moon emerged from the Pacific Ocean.

If we asked Frank Stacy (University of Queensland, Australia) he would refer us to his book, Physics of the Earth, Stacy., John Wiley & Sons, 1969, p 39. Wherein he'd say the moon formed with the earth as "a double planet!"
/



eq
/

[DontBeAfraid]

3.) Something of size struck the earth and the moon emerged from the Pacific Ocean.

Where did you get the "from the pacific ocean" part of that?

[equestrian]

DontBeAfraid

Where did you get the "from the pacific ocean" part of that?

eq) It's called the "fission" theory

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tothemoon/origins.html

I prefer Frank Stacey's co-planet theory. There are various analyses of their respective compositions - all of them (except for iron) show a very similar composition - here is one (NOTE I have averaged the numbers)

(source http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/lo...osition.html):

------------------------Earth-----------Moon

Iron (Fe)--------------32-----------9.0
Oxygen (O)-----------30----------42.0
Silicon (Si)------------16----------20.6
Magnesium (Mg)-----15----------19.0
Calcium (Ca)---------1.0-----------4.0
Aluminum (A)--------1.0-----------4.0
Nickel (Ni)------------2.0-----------1.0
Sodium (Na)----------1.0-----------0.1
Sulphur (S)----------- 2.0----------0.3

eq
/

[Ningishiddza]

eq) It's called the "fission" theory

Yes and a Cray Super Computer destroyed that theory and then a Cray Super II destroyed that theory and then about 10 years ago Cray's latest incarnation Big Red destroyed that theory.

Mr. Wizard you just might want to acquaint yourself with escape velocity.

I prefer Frank Stacey's co-planet theory.

That's par for the course since it's outdated by about 40 years.

[equestrian]

DontBeAfraid

Where did you get the "from the pacific ocean" part of that?

eq) It's called the "fission" theory

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tothemoon/origins.html

I prefer Frank Stacey's co-planet theory. His book has seen several newer editions. There are various analyses of the the earth/moon's respective compositions - all of them (except for iron) show a very similar composition - here is one (NOTE I have averaged the numbers)

(source http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/lo...osition.html):

------------------------Earth-------Moon

Iron (Fe)--------------32-----------9.0
Oxygen (O)-----------30----------42.0
Silicon (Si)------------16----------20.6
Magnesium (Mg)-----15----------19.0
Calcium (Ca)---------1.0-----------4.0
Aluminum (A)--------1.0-----------4.0
Nickel (Ni)------------2.0-----------1.0
Sodium (Na)----------1.0-----------0.1
Sulphur (S)----------- 2.0----------0.3

eq
/

[Fut004]

EQ, how do you manage to post the exact same thing twice?!?

If you weren't going to respond to Ning's comments, that utterly destroyed your little story here, why did you bother posting again? Wait for another member to post something you want to respond to, wait for DBA to respond, add more relevant information, or just don't post.

How is it that such a smart man (well... you claim to be anyhow) can't figure out how to use a forum properly?

[dwbeaufort]

Really guys, EQ is just trolling ya'll. Nobody is stupid enough to believe all the crap he has been posting

[Rabid1]

Really guys, EQ is just trolling ya'll. Nobody is stupid enough to believe all the crap he has been posting

Since circumambulating means:
to circle on foot especially ritualistically and to avoid the point, I would say you are correct.

[TC]

EQ, how do you manage to post the exact same thing twice?!?

If you weren't going to respond to Ning's comments, that utterly destroyed your little story here, why did you bother posting again? Wait for another member to post something you want to respond to, wait for DBA to respond, add more relevant information, or just don't post.

How is it that such a smart man (well... you claim to be anyhow) can't figure out how to use a forum properly?

Eq. got around the questions the same way in the other threads as well, he either ridiculed it as nonsense, or devalued the poster as not having any credibility to debate.... or didn't bother answering at all.

At least Anarch debates his theory without shooting the poster....

[equestrian]

The moon is nothing
But a circumambulating aphrodisiac
Divinely subsidized to provoke the world
Into a rising birth-rate.

.................Christopher Fry, British playwright (18 December 1907 – 30 June 2005)
/

[Fut004]

.................Christopher Fry, British playwright (18 December 1907 – 30 June 2005)
/

Something tells me that quoting a playwright, or discussing the works of a playright does not belong in the science forum. Just a hunch though.

[Ningishiddza]

EQ, how do you manage to post the exact same thing twice?!?

More than twice:

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=27243

This is my one of my favorite exchanges:

It's actually Frank Stacey, not Stacy.

Where in the book, specifically does it say that "Accretion explains why the terrestrial planets (and most moons) are round"?

Page number please.

Naturally, Equidiot dodged every single opportunity to provide any evidence.

In typical Equidiot fashion, his response to that was:

You mis-read the item - that was my commentary

To which another postor familiar with the Equidiot technique of posting an inane theory then refusing to provide any evidence to support it comments:

I suppose that's to be expected. laugh.gif

Another postor then replies:

So... you brought in a book that does not support your point?

Good idea. biggrin.gif

Responses from other postors to equidiot's nonsense:

You are misrepresenting the USGS position.

Are you somehow damaged, or simply a troll?

Can you use Wikipedia or any of several relevant sources to support your nonsense?

I didn't think so. dry.gif

Setting up straw men is not equivalent to scientific discourse. So far, all you have done is mock straw men that you claim the USGS supports. Why don't you spend a little more time explaining what YOU think happened and less time mocking imaginary view points.

At this point jamesbowles is just being deliberately stupid I think. Either it's a troll or just another creationist with delusions of grandeur.

Ya know....

Your sarcasm would be a heck of a lot more interesting if...

1. You actually knew anything in any kind of depth about the subject.

2. You actually had a sense of humor rather than just being arrogant.

3. You actually had a sense of humor.

Also note how woll3Y comes to play the shill for equidiot.

[Fut004]

Hahah, that's pretty funny. Thanks for posting that here.
I like this one the best:

At this point jamesbowles is just being deliberately stupid I think. Either it's a troll or just another creationist with delusions of grandeur.

I'm happy to know that we're not the only ones who suspect this douche is a Troll.

So what do you think? Is he a Troll or just a whack-o Creationist?